Re: [dnssd] Call for WG Adoption: draft-huitema-dnssd-privacy-01

Just reaffirmining what I said at the mic.

I support adopting this draft, while the pairing portion I would prefer be in a separate
draft in a different group (e.g. intarea with joint review by saag), since the pairing part
should not be specific to dnssd.

Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dnssd [mailto:dnssd-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Martin Thomson
> Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2016 1:29 AM
> To: Tim Chown <Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk>
> Cc: dnssd@ietf.org; Terry Manderson <terry.manderson@icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [dnssd] Call for WG Adoption: draft-huitema-dnssd-privacy-01
> 
> What is the status of the pairing piece of this work?  None of this can work
> without addressing that portion.  The document contains some ideas, but
> these are quite nebulous and certainly not sufficient to deploy an
> interoperable solution for this.
> 
> (I'm generally supportive of this work, but I want to make sure that everyone
> understands the scope and magnitude of the work involved
> here.)
> 
> On 25 July 2016 at 16:16, Tim Chown <Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > At the meeting in Berlin, there was a positive reaction to the
> > "Privacy Extensions for DNS-SD” draft,
> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-huitema-dnssd-privacy-01.
> >
> > While only a small number of people had read it in detail, those who
> > had read it expressed a desire for the WG to adopt the draft.
> >
> > This email therefore begins a two-week formal dnssd mail list call for
> > adoption of the draft by the WG. Please send any comments, for or
> > against, to the dnssd WG list. If you indicated support in the
> > meeting, feel free to reaffirm this, and add any comments.
> >
> > The call ends on Monday 8th August.
> >
> > The document status in the data tracker can be found at
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-huitema-dnssd-privacy/.
> >
> > Note that the WG in which the specifics of the pairing protocol will
> > be developed will be reviewed by our AD. On the one had it is a
> > generic mechanism that may be better defined in a security WG, on the
> > other we should have a critical mass of people to get the work done
> > here, if the draft is adopted.
> >
> > Tim
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > dnssd mailing list
> > dnssd@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnssd
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dnssd mailing list
> dnssd@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnssd